Ajay Tewari, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner-UOI has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') allowing the appeal of the respondents. The respondent No. 1 was leased out agricultural land by the petitioner-Union of India for a period of 5 years.(20 acres land was leased out in December, 1968 and another 19.42 acres on 1.9.1970). However, after the initial period of 5 years came to an end, the petitioner continued to accept rent from the respondent No. 1 up to 31.5.1995. Thereafter the rent sought to be deducted by the respondent was refunded back and notice under section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.7.1996. After hearing the respondent No. 1, the Estate Officer allowed the application. The respondent filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority held that the lease of the respondent had not been validly terminated in accordance with Action 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and consequently allowed the appeal. Hence the present petition. 2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that for premises belonging to the Central Government the Appellate Authority could not have relied upon the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and in a case like the present one the Act is a complete Code. 3. The stand of the respondents on the other hand is that the order of the Appellate Authority is correct and it was incumbent on the petitioner to have terminated the lease first under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and then seek recourse to the Act. A somewhat similar situation had come before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and another v. Punjab National Bank and others reported as : AIR 1991 SC 855 : 1990 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 297 wherein also a tenant had sought a declaration that he would be covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. There their Lordships in a constitutional bench held that the Public Premises Act would have precedence in such a situation. There their Lordships in a constitutional bench held that the Public Premises Act would have precedence in such a situation. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon M/s. Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another reported as : 1980 (4) SCC 435 : 1981 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 590 to contend that in that judgment their lordships had held that it would be the origin of the occupation which would determine the case and that in this case origin of the occupation was in December, 1968. In my opinion the said passage in that judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case because in paras 4 and 5 their lordships were dealing with the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 where the definition of 'unauthorised occupation' was entirely different. In fact their lordships in para 5 specifically held that the observations made in the context of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 would have no relevance to a case under the Central Act. Once it is held that the provisions of the Act of 1971 would prevail over the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act then that Act provides a complete Code. Notice was duly issued to the respondent under Section 4. Consequently the order of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. It cannot also be lost sight of that since after 31.5.1995 the respondents have been in gratuitous possession of the land and have not paid a single penny for the use thereof. In the circumstances even equity is not in their favour. The petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Estate Officer is confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the petitioner will allow the respondents to harvest the crop which they have sown in the land in dispute. Petition is allowed in the above terms.